I'm still a newbie on Steemit.
I've only been seriously writing for about the last 6 weeks or so and I've greatly enjoyed my time so far.
I've slowly been learning the ropes.
I've sought to contribute content of quality and of value.
But there is one thing that has confused me: censorship.
I'm not looking to get attacked, I'm just seeking to understand, so please hear me out.
I always thought that one of the great values of the blockchain and of @Steemit is that it is a censor-resistant platform; that it's a place where people can share ideas, even unpopular ones, without being shut down or their voices silenced.
The same goes for @dtube.
But as of late I feel like I'm seeing more people being heavily censored and their lives affected.
So far I've seen a few different kinds of censoring take place. As I enumerate them, please know that I'm not making per se judgment calls about whether these are good or bad.
From what I've seen, this account seeks to call out people who are not producing quality content; people who are taking advantage, perhaps, by just posting something really short and then self-voting on it.
Or, I've seen the account also flag people who are using bid-bots that could be used for posts longer than a certain number of days. It recommended only using accounts of 3.5 days or less.
Did I do ok in describing this account? @grumpycat, if you're reading this, feel free to give more perspective below.
This account seems to flag people who are somehow cheating the system or who are scammy or spammy. Most noticeably, his account—and I suppose a lot of people with similar sentiments—downvoted @trevonjb into oblivion.
Note below:
I confess it's been somewhat fascinating to see that a post can have lots of likes, comments, but zero funds in it.
Again, I'm not saying that what @grumpycat or @berniesanders has done is bad. I'm actually just trying to understand better. @berniesanders if you wouldn't mind taking a moment to comment below, I'd love to hear what the purpose or mission is of your account. Seems like you're trying to protect the ecosystem, but I'd love to hear more.
Here are some questions I have for @ned and the community as a whole:
I thought that Steemit, because it was built upon a blockchain, was a system that was inherently censor resistant. But it seems like that is not really the case, right? Anybody want to chip in with more perspective?
One of the things that attracted me about Steemit was the idea that people can feel free to share ideas, whether good or bad. One of the things that I've seen with YouTube is that different people are leaving it to join @dtube because it seems like people can share freely on there.
Are there official rules somewhere about what is appropriate behavior and post material?
There is a flagging system inherent in the platform, but what are the rules that govern its use?
Should there be rules to govern what can be posted and what cannot be?
What are the roles of witnesses like @jerrybanfield in this?
Or is the point for it to be exactly what it presently is?—which, I confess, seems like a rather random wild-wild-west-kind-of-place.
Finally, am I really free to post whatever I want on Steemit? Is this a place where free speech can abound?
What happens if I begin to post things that happen to be unpopular material? Is it ok that people would have the right to shut it down completely?
If I'm misunderstanding the purpose of Steemit and how it does or should operate, fine. I just want to better understand so that I can determine whether this is the right platform for me to stay on.
I believe that for Steemit to succeed in the long run, more clarity concerning expectations and how things operate need to be given. As an old college professor of mine used to say, "Clear expectations lead to stability."
Without those expectations, Steemit will continue to come across as a somewhat scary and random place, which will affect its ability to grow and develop.
So what do you think? What are your thoughts on the matter?
[image by Oscar Keys]
Well, it depends what you call censorship. The thing is you can post anything and nobody will hinder you to post things. But of course users (and bots) can rate (upvote) or flag it.
I just have a problem with steepshot. A user probably accidentally flagged a perfectly beautiful picture that I took yesterday in Prague with my smartphone. But because it is flagged it won't show in my profile in steepshot any more. It is still visible in steemit though. But in the eSteem app it showed a -1 vote. That's why I upvoted it myself so it won't show a -1 any more. So I also think it is not okay, when just one user can cause a picture to disappear. I think it needs more people to flag something before it gets unavailable. If a new user like in my case flags a picture or other content it shouldn't have such a negative effect.
This is the picture I'm talking about:
https://alpha.steepshot.io/post/@explorer79/st-nicholas-church-in-prague-st--nikolau-2018-02-13-20-01-12
I think downvotes should only count if at least 5 people downvote. And a person who downvotes a lot, their downvotes shouldn't count much any longer.
Thank you for sharing your experience. And thanks for letting me know about Steepshot! Didn't know about the app :)
But, yes, the issue that you bring up is a real one. Right now it's too easy to downvote/flag someone and make their content disappear. Some reform is needed in this area. That's what I mean by people's content being censored.
Downvotes are Flawed
I really think the "downvotes" need to be rethought. The other day I tried to say something to that Trevon guy and I was, for lack of a better word, attacked by @berniesanders and his henchmen for talking with Trevon. When I say attacked, they ganged up on me by sending me a barrage of downvotes. Why? Because I asked Trevon if he got served yet with a lawsuit.
Seriously??? They really want to control everyone's behavior into doing what THEY think is right. That defeats the entire notion of being "free" in this ecosystem. Hell, Youtube didn't stop me for chastising Logan Paul. But @berniesanders thinks he has the right to stop anyone from communicating with anyone else he has a beef with. At least with Youtube, you only have 1 entity to contend with. Here, you have 100's of Whales to contend with and make sure you don't get on their wrong side.
This means everyone is walking on eggshells...hoping they don't offend anyone they happen to disagree with.
@ned, please tell me you have a fix for this. This "self-governing" thing isn't working.
Potential solutions:
Downvotes should only have the strength of a "1" Reputation with no SP. This minimizes the effect the whales have and equalizes all negative impacts. Meaning, only if that person gets 50,000 downvotes, then it should be removed from being viewed. 10 Whales should not have that power. 50,000 people call can't be wrong...but 10 easily can be.
Have deligated downvotes by elected accounts, just as we do with witnesses. This would give a smaller handful of people power to downvote with more influence. And open a petition mechanism to remove the downvotes if you feel it was unjustly done. Where if I petition to remove a wrongful downvote, I can petition to have my request reviewed by a next level up or to another group of witnesses. Maybe something like our judicial system today.
1st Level: District Court
2nd Level: Court of Appeals
3rd Level: US Supreme Court
I know the Steemit platform has issues and abuses. But vigilante style justice doesn't work in the real world, why should we expect it to work here?
Wow, this is one of the most fascinating and thorough comments I've ever read. Thank you.
I think the solutions you propose are well thought out. Seems like something like that would be good to add. That's why I mention in the post that things at the moment just seem like the wild west.
There needs to be more clarity and a little more oversight, me thinks.
I just wanted to relate some info to you as you seem to have a few misconceptions.
In your solution number two, you are creating a monopoly of force. When you have that monopoly, you open it up for corruption. In fact, I'm not totally sure I agree with the way we vote on witnesses either, but I'm not sure I have a real solution to it. Anyway, I just wanted to let you know those things.
Hi @moeknows, allow me to respond to your points.
The big point in all of this is, steemit downvoting system is broken. Vigilante/mafia's are what rule what is "right/wrong." And that style has never worked in real society.
It matters, maybe not in this case, but in general because here, it makes no difference whether you were downvoted/upvoted 50 times or once. All that matters is the SP of the person downvoting you. So whether Bernie does it from 50 accounts or a single account makes very little difference. I'm not arguing with you. I'm just explaining that because it is not always apparent.
Not really. Here, downvotes are used to reward monetary funds meaning that it is perfectly acceptable and even encouraged to downvote good works for no other reason than because you feel that the rewards were too much.
In order to fix a problem, you have to understand the problem. Your proposed system only addresses a single aspect of a multi-faceted problem. I just wanted to relay some of the facts.
Yeah, whether they're bots or not, I think, is not the real question. It's the issue if being able to gang up on someone.
It is a single individual. Even if all his power were consolidated into one account, the result owuld be the same for the victim.
Well, it's interesting, and I think more clarity about the rules are for sure needed for the community to grow. I had even less knowledge about censorpship though, I've only seen people with reputation below zero, but when I look at what they post, they seem to be doing plagiarism, or directly insulting others.
Right. I think plagiarism is definitely a clear negative, and I appreciate the bots who scout those out. But, like you say, about insulting someone, when is that free speech and when does it cross the line of violent speech that should be regulated? All questions that I have.
I was downvoted for simply talking with someone @berniesanders didn't like. That's tantamount to censorship. That's nothing more than a dictatorship system. Meaning, there's no true freedom.
It will definitely be interesting to see the comments and feedback on your post. I have a limited understanding of these points that you made as well, so hopefully we will all be enlightened!
Hopefully! :)
To the question in your title, my Magic 8-Ball says:
Hi! I'm a bot, and this answer was posted automatically. Check this post out for more information.
But wait a second, I had two questions ;)
This post has received a 4.25 % upvote from @booster thanks to: @leaderinsights.